What do you think of the Royal family ??

Posted by: mista h on 02 August 2012

Winkyincanada managed to put a few peoples noses out of joint with his Olympics thread,so i thought i would try and do the same !!!

 

MY VIEW is overall they are an expensive waste of space and if i had my way i would get rid of PDQ.

Even my other half does not agree with my views,but do i care !!

 

This is my breakdown(an these are MY views)

 

Queenie......about the only one in my opinion that has done a good job for 60 years.Move her into a small apartment and open up the whole of Buck Pal to tourists...the yanks wouls love it.

 

Phil......opens his mouth to often before slipping brain into gear.

 

THE KIDS

Charlie.....Anyone who likes talking to plants,well nothing more to say is their

 

The prince of golf.....Why should i take a £100 train journey when the tax payer will provide a £20,000 helicoptor.

 

Edward.....Joined the forces.....FAIL     Started a film company..........FAIL

 

Annie.....Not a bad old stick,but who the f does her 1920s hair style.

 

THE OFFSPRING

 

William...A likeable sort of chap,supposed to be a search & rescue pilot.    WHEN ??

 

Harry....Apart from staggering out of clubs at 4am what does he do ??

 

THE REST OF THE MOB

 

The prince of golf insists his 2 kids should get 24 hour Police protection....at the taxpayers expense.

Can someone tell me why we should pay. He wants em protected let him pay i say.

 

OTHER MINOR ROYALS    A total non starter a far as i am concerned

 

Mista H

Posted on: 06 August 2012 by The Strat (Fender)
Originally Posted by totemphile:

The royals are perverted remnants of the past, get rid of them and nationalise their wealth and property. It's ironic how especially common folks adore royal families across Europe and the world, when their wealth was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary people, who were subjugated to death to finance the luxurious extravagances of the aristocracy. In this day and age they are the true parasites of society, serving no purpose but to feed the poorest in society and blind mammoths of days past, with some sense of grandeur, believing that Britain or whatever other country still represents something special in this world. The Empire is long gone and good thing it is. Same for any other blinded vision. Nationalism is the downfall of humanity, the sooner we rid ourselves from it the better for everyone. 

I'm minded towards modifying our constitution and evolving our system of government as much as the next person - but that is utter tosh. It's you matey who is a remnant referring to "especially common folks".

Posted on: 06 August 2012 by Wugged Woy
Originally Posted by The Strat (Fender):
Originally Posted by totemphile:

The royals are perverted remnants of the past, get rid of them and nationalise their wealth and property. It's ironic how especially common folks adore royal families across Europe and the world, when their wealth was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary people, who were subjugated to death to finance the luxurious extravagances of the aristocracy. In this day and age they are the true parasites of society, serving no purpose but to feed the poorest in society and blind mammoths of days past, with some sense of grandeur, believing that Britain or whatever other country still represents something special in this world. The Empire is long gone and good thing it is. Same for any other blinded vision. Nationalism is the downfall of humanity, the sooner we rid ourselves from it the better for everyone. 

I'm minded towards modifying our constitution and evolving our system of government as much as the next person - but that is utter tosh. It's you matey who is a remnant referring to "especially common folks".

DENNIS:  What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!

ARTHUR:  Well, I AM king...

DENNIS:  Oh king, eh, very nice.  An' how'd you get that, eh?  By  exploitin' the workers -- by 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma,  which perpetuates the economic an'  social differences in our society!  If there's ever going to be any progress--

 

 

Today I posted this on a recent thread.......... thought it was appropriate here too. Get a grip boys.

Posted on: 06 August 2012 by totemphile
Originally Posted by The Strat (Fender):
Originally Posted by totemphile:

The royals are perverted remnants of the past, get rid of them and nationalise their wealth and property. It's ironic how especially common folks adore royal families across Europe and the world, when their wealth was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary people, who were subjugated to death to finance the luxurious extravagances of the aristocracy. In this day and age they are the true parasites of society, serving no purpose but to feed the poorest in society and blind mammoths of days past, with some sense of grandeur, believing that Britain or whatever other country still represents something special in this world. The Empire is long gone and good thing it is. Same for any other blinded vision. Nationalism is the downfall of humanity, the sooner we rid ourselves from it the better for everyone. 

I'm minded towards modifying our constitution and evolving our system of government as much as the next person - but that is utter tosh. It's you matey who is a remnant referring to "especially common folks".

Utter tosh, mmhhh, yes, you are quite right of course. I bet you'd have loved living the life of a peasant farmer paying your taxes to your beloved King. And of course all that Royal wealth, gold, diamonds, the Crown Jewels came from a splendid entrepreneurial idea, not from exploiting your own people and randacking your neighbouring countries or colonies for that matter? Now, you might like to be proud being British, but if you do? Pick other reasons, your Empire days and Kingdom are the wrong ones and nothing to be proud of mate! And if you do? You've got a pretty blinded vision of history. Back to school?

Posted on: 06 August 2012 by totemphile
Originally Posted by EJS:

It's amazing how easily people are lured to say the most ill-conceived things on public fora. Forever preserved in some dark corner on google.

 
Originally Posted by George Fredrik:

Dear EJ,

 

I have a sort of clear outer limit on things that I owuld ever put into the net, either a Forum or the email machine!

 

Some things must be said face to face.

 

ATB from George

 

Why is that George? I am curious. So nobody can hear it? The more open, the better. Just IMHO of course. You got to face up to your history, not always pleasant but all the more important for it. And I say that as a German, plenty of ugly history to face up to, lest anyone forget!

 

ATB

tp

Posted on: 06 August 2012 by Don Atkinson

I'm a bit pushed for time at present so can't draft a comprehensive response to the OP et al.

 

The monarchy isn't expensive in real terms and certianly no more expensive than most of the practical alternatives.

 

Keeping the Head of State, separate from the  government makes sense.

 

Continuity counts for a lot, and the dick heads in the family are part of their quaintness.

 

Americans can visit Buck House now. They are even more attracted to the palace with a real live monarchy than they would be to a hollow museum..

 

Tony's personal experiences with officers in the RAF are irrelevant, purely his experience.( I was never in the RAF)

 

As I said, I'm a bit pushed for time. The current system works better than most.

 

Cheers

 

Don

 

Posted on: 07 August 2012 by The Strat (Fender)
Originally Posted by totemphile:
Originally Posted by The Strat (Fender):
Originally Posted by totemphile:

The royals are perverted remnants of the past, get rid of them and nationalise their wealth and property. It's ironic how especially common folks adore royal families across Europe and the world, when their wealth was built on the blood, sweat and tears of the ordinary people, who were subjugated to death to finance the luxurious extravagances of the aristocracy. In this day and age they are the true parasites of society, serving no purpose but to feed the poorest in society and blind mammoths of days past, with some sense of grandeur, believing that Britain or whatever other country still represents something special in this world. The Empire is long gone and good thing it is. Same for any other blinded vision. Nationalism is the downfall of humanity, the sooner we rid ourselves from it the better for everyone. 

I'm minded towards modifying our constitution and evolving our system of government as much as the next person - but that is utter tosh. It's you matey who is a remnant referring to "especially common folks".

Utter tosh, mmhhh, yes, you are quite right of course. I bet you'd have loved living the life of a peasant farmer paying your taxes to your beloved King. And of course all that Royal wealth, gold, diamonds, the Crown Jewels came from a splendid entrepreneurial idea, not from exploiting your own people and randacking your neighbouring countries or colonies for that matter? Now, you might like to be proud being British, but if you do? Pick other reasons, your Empire days and Kingdom are the wrong ones and nothing to be proud of mate! And if you do? You've got a pretty blinded vision of history. Back to school?

Yes tosh and you're being ridiculous to boot - not for holding a legitimate view that the country would be better as a republican but your references to especially common folks and peasant farmers. If you read my other post (ref: Henrey VIII) you'll realise  that I'm very mindful of the need to evolve both our constitution and political system and I have no doubt that there are other democrat models that serve their nations equally well but ridding a nation of a monarchy doesn't in itself guarantee democracy - witness Mugabe, Hitler and Stalin - amongst others. As it happens I'm not nationalistic at all - in fact the whole Pomp and Circumstance leaves me cold and during my younger years I favoured becoming a republic but right now I think we have evolved pretty well and given the severest economic problems we have to resolve some stability is a pretty good thing to have.

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by Wugged Woy

REG: And what have the Romans ever given us in return?!

 XERXES: The aquaduct?

 REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.

 COMMANDO #3: And the sanitation.

 LORETTA: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like?

 REG: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.

 MATTHIAS: And the roads.

 REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--

 COMMANDO: Irrigation.

 XERXES: Medicine.

 COMMANDO #2: Education.

 REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.

 COMMANDO #1: And the wine.

 FRANCIS: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.

 COMMANDO: Public baths.

 LORETTA: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

 FRANCIS: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this.

 REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

 XERXES: Brought peace.

 REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by totemphile
Originally Posted by The Strat (Fender):

Yes tosh and you're being ridiculous to boot - not for holding a legitimate view that the country would be better as a republican but your references to especially common folks and peasant farmers. If you read my other post (ref: Henrey VIII) you'll realise  that I'm very mindful of the need to evolve both our constitution and political system and I have no doubt that there are other democrat models that serve their nations equally well but ridding a nation of a monarchy doesn't in itself guarantee democracy - witness Mugabe, Hitler and Stalin - amongst others. As it happens I'm not nationalistic at all - in fact the whole Pomp and Circumstance leaves me cold and during my younger years I favoured becoming a republic but right now I think we have evolved pretty well and given the severest economic problems we have to resolve some stability is a pretty good thing to have.

Are you honestly suggesting that the wealth of Kings and Queens across the world is their rightful belonging? Do you not agree that for centuries their subjects were exploited to death to finance the squanderous lifestyle of the aristocracy? I repeat, it's ironic how the majority of people seem to just accept their continuing existence as something given, acceptable or even admirable. Mine might be radical views but bottom line is whatever they own and have amassed over centuries belongs to the people and no one else! The fact that not enough people cry out loud for them to step down and finally give back to them what is rightfully theirs is nothing but a reflection of the world we live in. A world were banks act as criminal organisations in the true sense and get away with stealing from the general public, where politicians are either too incompetent or part of the corrupt fabric to do anything about it, not even when billions, if not trillions, of tax payers' money are thrown at the financial industry, to resuscitate ailing banks when liberal principles and market rules dictate that they must fail? I say, it's about time for a revolution. The only thing that's scary is that it hasn't happened yet. The old phrase be careful what you wish for is just another way of perpetuating the status quo. Fact is some pretty drastic changes are needed in this world.

 

IMHO. You may disagree, that's fine.

 

tp

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by EJS

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by totemphile
Originally Posted by EJS:

Boring

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by George Fredrik

Boring but correct ...

 

Without political excecutive power the British Royal Family provides stability simply because apart from a few Hampstead Champagne Socialist Republicans, it as a firm, unites the country.

 

And they have been responsible for a massive amount of reform in the face of the Barons and Capitalist who are not representitive of anything but their own interest in getting richer at everyone else's expense. 

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by Don Atkinson
Originally Posted by totemphile:
 

 

IMHO. You may disagree, that's fine.

 

tp

I think quite a few of us might disagree, so its just as well it "fine"

 

Cheers

 

Don

 


 

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by JMB

Does anybody know exactly what executive power the royal family actually has ?  Are we sure the monarchy has none ?

 

What is the defined role of the queen in the governance of our country ? Where is it explained or written down ? Do we have any say in what that role should be ? 

 

We have no written constitution, but lots of arcane precedents and obscure constitutional laws most of which I doubt, we the governed, are aware of.

 

And as for uniting the country and providing stability it doesn't work for me. Their existence underpins the worst aspect of British life - the perception of a class divide. Do we really imagine the country would fall apart without the presence of a rather intellectually challenged family to maintain order ?

 

I just cannot understand how any normally intelligent person could support a system of governance that relies on the existence of a hereditary head of state who may or may not have the necessary qualities or the support of the electorate. 

 

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by George Fredrik
Originally Posted by JMB:

Does anybody know exactly what executive power the royal family actually has ?  Are we sure the monarchy has none ?

 

What is the defined role of the queen in the governance of our country ? Where is it explained or written down ? Do we have any say in what that role should be ? 

 

We have no written constitution, but lots of arcane precedents and obscure constitutional laws most of which I doubt, we the governed, are aware of.

 

And as for uniting the country and providing stability it doesn't work for me. Their existence underpins the worst aspect of British life - the perception of a class divide. Do we really imagine the country would fall apart without the presence of a rather intellectually challenged family to maintain order ?

 

I just cannot understand how any normally intelligent person could support a system of governance that relies on the existence of a hereditary head of state who may or may not have the necessary qualities or the support of the electorate. 

 

The Monarch appoints and can [apparently] dissolve the government. I can not easily imagine a situation where the Monarch would actually dissolve the gov't without a vote of no confidence.

 

But in a Revolutionary condition no doubt something would actually happen. The position may seem without power, but in extremis, it could well save us from a revolution.

 

ATB from George

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by totemphile
Originally Posted by George Fredrik:

Boring but correct ...

 

Without political excecutive power the British Royal Family provides stability simply because apart from a few Hampstead Champagne Socialist Republicans, it as a firm, unites the country.

 

And they have been responsible for a massive amount of reform in the face of the Barons and Capitalist who are not representitive of anything but their own interest in getting richer at everyone else's expense. 

 

ATB from George

I wonder George, what exactly about my last post is? Whatever that means. As it stands it's a bit of an unqualified comment and not very helpful at all. Every sentence I wrote? If that's the opinion of EJS than all I can do is wish him well to continue living blissfully in ignorance. I'd rather walk through life with open eyes and an active brain. It's what it was meant to do, think and question.

 

In any case I am not saying you should overthrow the royal family, hang them and distribute the money to the mob. How England, in this specific case, develops its constitution and political system is up to its people and changes won't happen over night anyhow. All I am saying, if you are brutally honest, than the royals, in any country, are remnants of the past and most certainly not representatives of a modern society. 

 

ATB

tp

 

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by totemphile
Originally Posted by Don Atkinson:
Originally Posted by totemphile:
 

 

IMHO. You may disagree, that's fine.

 

tp

I think quite a few of us might disagree, so its just as well it "fine"

 

Cheers

 

Don

 


 

That my views wouldn't be particularly popular here was to be expected Don, we are on an English forum after all. Having lived and studied in England though I do know that quite a few of your fellow countrymen hold very similar views. Maybe not here on this forum though, which, dare I say, is probably more on the conservative side.

 

I have no issue with that, if anything different views stimulate discussion. That's progress in itself.

 

tp 

 

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by Peter Dinh
Originally Posted by George Fredrik:
Originally Posted by JMB:

Does anybody know exactly what executive power the royal family actually has ?  Are we sure the monarchy has none ?

 

What is the defined role of the queen in the governance of our country ? Where is it explained or written down ? Do we have any say in what that role should be ? 

 

We have no written constitution, but lots of arcane precedents and obscure constitutional laws most of which I doubt, we the governed, are aware of.

 

And as for uniting the country and providing stability it doesn't work for me. Their existence underpins the worst aspect of British life - the perception of a class divide. Do we really imagine the country would fall apart without the presence of a rather intellectually challenged family to maintain order ?

 

I just cannot understand how any normally intelligent person could support a system of governance that relies on the existence of a hereditary head of state who may or may not have the necessary qualities or the support of the electorate. 

 

The Monarch appoints and can [apparently] dissolve the government. I can not easily imagine a situation where the Monarch would actually dissolve the gov't without a vote of no confidence.

 

But in a Revolutionary condition no doubt something would actually happen. The position may seem without power, but in extremis, it could well save us from a revolution.

 

ATB from George

A revolution is always good, and this is the truth if we look around - Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc. and oh, I forgot Iran.

Posted on: 08 August 2012 by joerand

What do you think of the Royal family ??


Quaint

Posted on: 09 August 2012 by Wugged Woy

Seeing that I'm obviously in a Python mood ......

Dennis: I *told* you!  We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune!  We're taking
turns to act as a sort of executive-officer-for-the-week--
Arthur: (uninterested) Yes...
Dennis: But all the decisions *of* that officer 'ave to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
Arthur: (perturbed) Yes I see!
Dennis: By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs--
Arthur: (mad) Be quiet!
Dennis: But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major--
Arthur: (very angry) BE QUIET! I *ORDER* you to be quiet!
Woman: "Order", eh, 'oo does 'e think 'e is?
Arthur: I am your king!
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you! .......................

 

Dennis:Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?
Posted on: 09 August 2012 by BigH47
Originally Posted by Peter Dinh:
 

A revolution is always good, and this is the truth if we look around - Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc. and oh, I forgot Iran.

France, USA, and England are other examples which don't fit your doom examples of course. Or maybe they do?

Posted on: 09 August 2012 by Wugged Woy
Originally Posted by Peter Dinh:

A revolution is always good...........

 

RIGHT ON BROTHER !!!!!

Posted on: 09 August 2012 by JMB

 Those who oppose change usually erect a strawman argument.  The alternative is always the equivalent of a 'bogeyman' who will be far worse than the status quo.

 

I do not believe we Brits would ever support a revolution but history suggests that in revolutions existing monarchies are usually swept away with the rest of the state. 

 

Time to move on from living in a Ruritanian royal theme park maintained for the benefit of tourists.

 

Posted on: 09 August 2012 by Tog

Irrelevant but like dandelions suprisingly resilient.

 

Tog

Posted on: 09 August 2012 by Guido Fawkes
Originally Posted by JMB:

I do not believe we Brits would ever support a revolution 

+1

 

All the best, Guy

(Happily living in a theme park)

Posted on: 09 August 2012 by Peter Dinh
Originally Posted by BigH47:
Originally Posted by Peter Dinh:
 

A revolution is always good, and this is the truth if we look around - Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc. and oh, I forgot Iran.

France, USA, and England are other examples which don't fit your doom examples of course. Or maybe they do?

The French Revolution (1789-1799) is the mother of all revolutions.